Bulletin Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1970

181 N.L.R.B. 647 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

BULLETIN COMPANY
Bulletin Company and Richard A. Cummings
Philadelphia Newspaper Printing Pressmen 's Union
Local No. 16 and Richard A. Cummings
Philadelphia Newspaper Printing Pressmen 's Union
No. 16, IPP & AU and Newspaper Publishers
Association of Philadelphia , on behalf of Bulletin
Company . Cases 4-CA-4817, 4-CB-1569, and
4-CB- 1618
March 11, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On November 19, 1969, Trial Examiner George J.
Bott issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that Respondents had engaged in
and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices,
and recommending that they ceasg and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision.
Thereafter, Respondents filed exceptions to the Trial
Examiner's Decision and briefs in support thereof.
The General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a
three-member panel
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
entire record in these cases, including the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and
hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings,
conclusions, and recommendations with the
following modification:
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the
Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)(3) and
(1) of the Act, and Respondent Union violated
Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act by maintaining
an agreement or understanding which conditioned
employment in the Company on Union membership,
clearance or approval, and by denying employment
to eight individual applicants because they lacked
such membership, clearance or approval. As part of
the remedy, the Trial Examiner recommended that
the Company be made "jointly and severally" liable
with the Union for the backpay accruing to the
eight discriminatees. We find merit in the
Company's exceptions to this recommendation.
The facts show that the Company made repeated
attempts to persuade the Union that the ex-Curtis
pressmen were qualified and that a negotiated
solution was the preferable one. The Union
responded with assertions of its "exclusive" control
over hiring, warnings of "trouble," and the
statement that the eight applicants would be hired
647
only under a court order. Following a crippling
slowdown in the pressroom (which upset a Board
settlement agreement), the Company itself filed
charges against the Union. And the Union persisted
in its unlawful pressures against the hiring of the
ex-Curtis employees. In light of the Union's
intransigent attitude and the Company's
vulnerability to union pressure,' we cannot say, for
remedy purposes herein, that the Company should
be faulted for not having done more than it did to
resist the Union's coercive and discriminatory
conduct. Rather, we are satisfied that, under the
circumstances presented, the Company took all
reasonable measures required to overcome the
Union's opposition to the hiring of the eight
applicants, and that the primary burden for
restoring the wage losses resulting from the
discrimination rightfully falls upon the Union.
Accordingly, we shall make the Union primarily
liable, and the Company only secondarily liable, for
the backpay of the eight discriminatees. Our action
here will not "water down" the remedy afforded the
eight employees, since recourse against the
Company will be available in the event
reimbursement is not forthcoming from the Union.
In short, we find that, on the,facts presented, it will
better effectuate the purposes of the Act to place
primary responsibility for backpay liability on the
Union.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified below, and hereby orders that Respondent,
Bulletin Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, and
Philadelphia Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union
Local No. 16, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, its
officers, agents, and representatives, shall take the
action set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Recommended Order, as modified herein:
1. Delete paragraph A, 2(a) of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order and substitute the
following:
"(a) Offer to the persons named in the attached
notices immediate employment as journeymen
pressmen and, in conjunction with Respondent
Union, with Respondent Union primarily liable,
The Company was faced with a shortage of pressmen and was largely
dependent on the Union to provide them It also appears that a slowdown,
such as that experienced on May 21 and 22, 1969, has a severely disruptive
effect on Company operations Given this situation , we cannot fault the
Company for exhausting all avenues of persuasion and negotiation before
filing its unfair labor practice charge
'See N L R B v Lexington Electric Products Co , 283 F 2d 54, 57-58
(C.A 3), SuCrest Corp, 165 NLRB 596 enfd 409 F 2d 765, 772 (C A 2),
Zoe Chemical Co, Inc, 160 NLRB 1001, 1002-03, enforcement denied as
to the employer , 406 F 2d 574 (C A 2) The factual differences cited by
the Trial Examiner do not, in our opinion, render these cases inapposite
181 NLRB No. 95
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered
as a result of the discrimination in manner and to
the extent set forth in this Decision and in the
"Remedy" section of the Trial Examiner's
Decision."
2. Delete paragraph B, 2(b) of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order and substitute the
following:
"(b) In conjunction with Respondent Employer,
with Respondent Union primarily liable, make the
persons named in the attached notices whole for any
loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them, in the manner and to
the extent set forth in this Decision and in the
"Remedy" section of the Trial Examiner's
Decision."
3. Delete the fifth indented paragraph of
Appendix A to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
substitute the following:
WE WILL, in conjunction with the Union, with
the Union primarily liable, make said employees
whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of
the discrimination against them.
4. Delete the fourth indented paragraph of
Appendix B to the Trial Examiner's Decision and
substitute the following:
WE WILL notify the Bulletin Company that we
have no objection to the employment of. Edward
Henderson, Richard Cummings, Leo Coyle,
Charles Schaller, Harold Heydt, Albert Boenning,
Francis Roberts, and George Trock, and WE
WILL, in conjunction with the above-named
Company, with ourselves primarily liable, make
these employees whole for any loss in pay suffered
as a result of the discrimination against them.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE J. BOTT, Trial Examiner- Upon charges of
unfair labor practices filed by Richard A. Cummings on
February 17, 1969, against Bulletin Company, herein
called Bulletin or Respondent Employer, and Philadelphia
Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union No 16, herein
called Local 16 or Respondent Union, and upon a charge
of unfair labor practices filed by the Newspaper
Publishers Association of Philadelphia on May 27, 1969,
against Respondent Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board issued a consolidated
complaint and notice of hearing on June 13, 1969, alleging
that Respondent Employer had violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3), and Respondent Union, Section 8(b)(l)(A) and
(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
herein called the Act. Respondent Union filed an answer
denying the commission of any unfair labor practices,' and
a hearing was held before me in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, on September 9, 11 and 12, 1969, at which
all parties were represented. Subsequent to the hearing,
Respondent Employer, Respondent Union and the
General Counsel filed briefs which have been carefully
considered
'Respondent Employer's answer admitted most of the factual allegations
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following-
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
Respondent Employer publishes the Evening-Bulletin
and distributes it in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware
and other states of the United States Respondent
Employer subscribes to various interstate news services,
and during the year prior to the issuance of the complaint,
purchased newsprint directly from points outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and derived gross
revenues from its operations in excess of $500,000. I find
that Respondent Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Brief Statement of the Issues and Description of
the Setting
The Employer, as a member of the Newspaper
Publishers Association of Philadelphia, is a party to a
collective bargaining contract with the Union covering
journeymen pressmen, apprentices and junior pressmen or
plate boys. Although the complaint alleges, but the Union
denies that the Employer and the Union have an
agreement or practice giving the Union control over the
hiring of journeymen pressmen, it is clear from the
agreement that the Union has at least agreed to furnish
the Employer "competent and skilled pressmen for the
Publisher's regular force or extra work " It is also clear
from the testimony that, except for the isolated instances
involved in this case, Respondent has not and does not
hire pressmen directly without union intervention, but
hires them only if they have been referred by the Union,
or, if they have applied to the foreman, only after they
have seen the Union's chapel chairman in the pressroom
and have been sent by him to the Union.
The Employer has experienced a shortage of
journeymen pressmen since 1964 and has urged the Union
to supply it with additional jdurneymen pressmen, but the
Union has been unable in most cases to furnish the
personnel that the Employer feels it needs In early 1969,
certain pressmen who had been laid off by Curtis
Publishing Company because of the closing of The
Saturday Evening Post applied directly to Respondent
Employer for work and the Employer, after first notifying
the Union of its intention, decided to hire them directly.
of the complaint The complaint was amended on July 10, 1969, to add
another unfair labor practice committed by Respondents in maintaining an
agreement conditioning hiring of journeymen pressmen on "membership in,
clearance or approval by, Respondent Union " Respondent Union denied
this allegation Respondent Employer 's original answer neither admitted
nor denied the factual allegation with respect to the arrangement, but
affirmed that such arrangement had not been "voluntarily entered into,
maintained, enforced " Respondent Employer's answer to the amended
complaint did not change its admissions regarding the factual allegations in
the first complaint It did state, however, that certain paragraphs of the
amended complaint called for conclusions of law, and so were neither
admitted nor denied.
BULLETIN COMPANY 649
Thereafter a complicated series of events took place over
the year 1969, including• the failure to follow through on
the Employer's commitment to hire the ex-Curtis men
who applied, a settlement agreement entered into by the
Employer with the National Labor Relations Board on
the basis of charges filed by the charging party herein, a
slow down and sabotage in the pressroom after the
settlement was announced, repudiation of the settlement
agreement by the Employer, eventual employment of
some of the applicants only after the filing of an
injunction proceeding under Section 10(j) of the Act in the
federal district court, and discharge of those employed
after another series of incidents in the pressroom.
It is General Counsel's position that the failure to
successfully employ the eight applicants listed in the
complaint was caused by union pressure put on the
Employer because the men were not members of, or
cleared for employment by, the Union. The Employer
does not dispute the General Counsel's contentions, but
argues that everything it did, it did under duress. The
Union, on the other hand, denies that it has any
understanding or arrangement with the Employer that
gives it the exclusive right to refer pressroom personnel,
denies that it took any action not permitted by law to
prevent the employ of the ex-Curtis applicants, and
contends that, in any case, any objections it raised to the
employment of these men was based on their lack of
qualifications as journeymen pressmen in the newspaper
industry.
Regretfully, in order to get a better view of the issues,
the position of the parties, and the failure to hire the
charging party and his Curtis colleagues, it is necessary to
go back a few years.
B The Stoddard Case
According to the credited testimony of Albert
Spendlove, Bulletin vice president and business manager
there were approximately 135 journeymen pressmen, 40 to
45 apprentices and perhaps 10 plate boys employed in the
Employer's pressroom at the time of the hearing The
number of pressmen employed on each press is governed
by the manning table in the contract Plate boys are hired
directly by the Employer, usually as casuals. After some
time, if the plate boy indicates an interest in printing as a
career, and if he is approved by the foreman and the
personnel department, he is guaranteed a 5-day week with
seniority in line to become an apprentice.
All apprentices come through the plate boy ranks and
serve 4 years before being eligible for journeyman status.
During .the last several years, because of a shortage of
pressmen, more apprentices have been moved to
journeyman grade, and as the apprentices move up plate
boys take their places. The pressroom personnel are
supervised by foremen and assistant foremen who are
members of Respondent Union.'
The Employer needs extra journeymen regularly
because it is impossible to accurately plan the entire
week 's manning table in advance. An estimate is made at
the beginning of the week, but around noon on any given
day before publication it is necessary to make the final
decision on manning . At that point, if extras are needed,
the chapel chairman is advised, and he calls available men
to fill the need According to Spendlove, the chapel
chairman arranges for the following groups to report in
'Local 16's Constitution and Laws required that foremen be members of
the Union
the order given. First of all, regular employees at other
newspapers on their day off get preference at straight
time. If there are none or that list is exhausted, Bulletin
apprentices are scheduled as journeymen at the
journeyman rate. If both sources are exhausted, then
Bulletin pressmen who are on their day off or who have
worked 5 days are scheduled at premium rates. When all
these sources have been fully tapped and there is still need
for additional help, plate boys are used at journeyman
rates Although some years ago enough extra journeymen
could be obtained from the other papers, because of the
shortage of pressmen the Employer now finds itself
working apprentices at journeyman rates a large part of
the time and even using plate boys as journeymen
Apprentices are regularly used as journeymen as is
evidenced by the fact that the Employer uses between 100
and 175 premium shifts per week
Because of the above factors, the Union was advised by
the Newspaper Publishers Association and by the Bulletin
that relief was needed. On May 9, 1966, Spendlove wrote
the Union's president and, after referring to the
inadequate supply of manpower, offered to create full-time
jobs for "25 competent pressmen "
In June 1966, James Stoddard, a former Curtis
Publishing Company employee, having applied directly to
the Bulletin for a position as journeyman pressman, was
hired and began working on June 7. On that day there
was a slowdown in the pressroom and at one time
production was 200,000 papers behind. Spendlove
telephoned Welsh, the Union' s business manager, and
asked him to come to the plant to straighten the matter
out Welsh arrived and asked the Employer to discharge
Stoddard, but Spendlove refused. However, he told Welsh
that Stoddard would not be rescheduled until the matter
was "clarified." When this information reached the
employees in the pressroom production returned to
normal
During the discussion with Welsh, Welsh told
Spendlove that the Employer should not have hired
Stoddard "at least until we heard what their manpower
plan was." This was the first that Spendlove had heard
about a plan, and he asked to meet that afternoon to
discuss it. The parties met and worked out a program
which provided that 10 apprentices be upgraded to
journeymen and 10 new plate boys hired. Spendlove said
the Bulletin agreed to go along with this plan although it
did not solve the Stoddard problem because full-time
journeymen were still needed. Many meetings with the
Union were had on the question and eventually the
International Union intervened and met with the parties.
The International Union, unable to find a solution to the
issue, finally placed the Local under trusteeship for 18
months.
During the trusteeship the International Union met
with representatives of the Newspaper Publishers
Association and, on January 7, 1967, reached an
agreement on behalf of Local 16 settling the Stoddard
issue. The agreement, which is referred to frequently in
the record as the "DeAndrade Agreement," after the
name of the International's president, gave members of
the Association the right to hire journeymen pressmen like
Stoddard who had not completed the International's
apprenticeship correspondence course. It also provided
that the seniority of these newly hired journeymen would
be less than that of "qualified" journeymen, that is to say,
those who had completed the Union's correspondence
650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
course.' After this agreement was approved, Stoddard
returned to work, and an additional manpower agreement
was also reached, very much like the earlier one, whereby
10 more apprentices were raised to journeymen, 10 plate
boys were upgraded to apprentices and 10 new plate boys
were hired.
In July 1967, seven named members of Local 16 filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the International
seeking to have the trusteeship terminated. The action was
filed by Robert Mallon, Jack Reilly, Donald Shablin,
Michael Vogel and Michael Shohen on behalf of
"themselves and all other members of Local 16 similarly
situated." The complaint alleged that a dispute arose on
June 6, 1966, between the Union and the Bulletin over the
"attempt of the Evening Bulletin to employ a non-union
pressman," that the Bulletin "claimed the members of
Local Union 16 engaged in a slowdown in violation of an
existing collective bargaining agreement," that the
International Union suggested a settlement providing for
"employment of a non-union pressman," and that Local
16 refused to accept the proposed settlement and was
placed in trusteeship. The complaint went on to allege
that, in January 1967, the membership of Local Union 16
agreed to the hiring of said pressman and to all the terms
of the settlement agreement proposed by the International,
thus, terminating "the dispute." Of the seven members
who filed the class action, Reilly is presently business
manager of the Union and was chapel chairman at the
Inquirer at the time, Mallon was president of the Union
at the time of the Stoddard incident, is president at the
present time and was on the Local Union's executive
committee during the trusteeship Vogel was on the
executive committee during the trusteeship, and both
Shohen and Shablin are currently on the executive
committee.'
According to Spendlove's uncontradicted testimony,
between the time of the Stoddard incident and January
1969, no person applied directly to the Bulletin's personnel
office for employment as a pressman. During that period
a number of pressmen were hired, however, but they were
either referred to the Employer by Reilly the Union's
business manager, or applied directly to the foreman of
the pressroom,' and if there were vacancies, then visited
the chapel chairman who sent them to the Union office.
During this period, the Employer also increased its
pressmen complement by elevating apprentices by
agreement with the Union, which was in addition to the
normal movement of apprentices to journeymen as they
completed their apprenticeships.
C. Events of 1969
1. The Employer receives applications for
employment from former Curtis Publishing
employees
Curtis Publishing Company was preparing to close The
'It is not clear from the face of the agreement , but it was Spendlove's
uncontradicted testimony that the newly hired journeymen who had not
taken the Union 's correspondence course would have less seniority than
those apprentices who had begun it, thereby protecting the seniority of
apprentices in the event of layoff
'All the parties and some of the witnesses referred to the Union's
"executive board" at times From the Union' s constitution in evidence it
appears that there is only one governing body, that is, the "executive
committee."
'The Union 's constitution provides that applications for employment
must be made to the foreman when the particular employer has a union
foreman in his pressroom The Bulletin 's foremen are members of the
Union
Saturday Evening Post in January 1969, causing a number
of their pressmen to apply to the Bulletin for employment.
The first application was filed on January 16 by Edward
Henderson who had already been laid off. Spendlove was
prepared to hire him immediately and to notify Reilly to
that effect, but he waited until he saw him socially that
evening to tell him about it. He then informed Reilly that
the applicant had 20 years experience at Curtis, that he
intended to hire him but that in doing so he would
carefully follow the provisions of the DeAndrade
Agreement which settled the Stoddard matter Reilly
replied that he had better not put Henderson to work
"because it would cause trouble."6 Spendlove urged Reilly
to sit down with him and discuss the problem
The Bulletin received two more applications from
'former Curtis employees within a day or so, and
Spendlove alerted Reilly He reminded him of the
DeAndrade Agreement and cautioned him that he would
be wiser to try to work the problem out amicably rather
than have the Bulletin either hire the men without union
approval or not hire them and risk having them file a
charge with the Board Reilly said he would consult with
the Union's executive committee.' After consulting his
advisers, Reilly told Spendlove that "we have a real
problem," for the executive committee felt that "the
Union had the exclusive right to hire people." Spendlove
disputed this claim and asked for a meeting to discuss it.
The Employer and the Union met on January 27, 1969,
to talk about the hiring problem. Reilly and Mallon were
the Union's principal spokesmen. Reilly stated, according
to Spendlove, that the Union "had the exclusive right to
hire" pressmen for the Bulletin 's pressroom Spendlove
disagreed with Reilly on the basis of the language in the
current agreement , and he also argued that if such were
the case, there would have been no need for the
DeAndrade compromise. Mallon claimed ignorance of the
DeAndrade Agreement During the discussion of the
question of who controlled hiring at the Bulletin, Reilly,
according to Spendlove, stated that he would never have
signed the existing collective bargaining contract if he had
not understood that it gave the Union "exclusive hiring
rights "
During the January 27 meeting, the Union claimed that
the recent Curtis applicants were not qualified. Spendlove
noted, however, that the contract makes the Employer the
sole judge of competency and that, in any case, the
applicants, who had 20 years in the trade, were qualified
in his opinion, and certainly more qualified than the
inexperienced apprentices the Employer was required to
use as journeymen because of the shortage of skilled
craftsmen. During this discussion , the Union spokesmen
also indicated that they were unaware that the Bulletin
needed men so badly, to which Spendlove replied that they
had been complaining about it for years and had
correspondence to prove it.'
At the close of the meeting with nothing resolved,
Reilly stated that the Union would supply the Bulletin
with men, and it "couldn't care less about the men whose
'Spendlove wrote Reilly on January 17, 1969, repeating the essence of
his conversation of the previous evening He also enclosed a copy of the
DeAndrade Agreement
7Spendlove wrote Reilly on January 20, 1969, giving him the names of
the new applicants who he described as having "over twenty years
experience "
'On January 31, 1969, in a letter to Reilly, Spendlove put this claim in
writing again and offered to employ 20 journeymen if the Union would
supply them
BULLETIN COMPANY 651
applications" had been received
The Bulletin continued to receive applications for
employment from ex-Curtis pressmen On February 13,
1969, the problem was again discussed between the Union
and the Newspaper Publishers Association.' Most of the
conversation at this session revolved around the
employers' effort to get the manning table reduced to help
alleviate the manpower problem. At the beginning of the
meeting, however, Spendlove gave the Union a list of
eight applicants who had applied for pressmen's jobs to
,date.- He again warned the Union that these applicants
might seek relief through the Board, and he urged the
Union to cooperate. The question of the applicants'
qualifications or competency was again raised by the
Union with Reilly observing during the discussion that
union men would do nothing to help the applicants in
their work if they were hired. At one point in the
conversations, Mallon stated that the applicants would
work "only under a court order " Although the point was
not stressed as much as it had been previously, the Union
still maintained during this meeting that "hiring should be
done only on referral by the Union," Spendlove said.
2. Applicant Cummings files unfair labor practices
charges
A few days after the above meeting with the Union,
what Spendlove warned the Union about happened.
Cummings, who had been employed at Curtis for 23 years
as a pressman's helper on rotary cylinder letterpresses and
who thought that he was going to have his application for
work at the Bulletin acted upon favorably, filed a charge
on February 17, 1969, when he did not get the job.
Cummings testified credibly that when he learned that
he would be laid off at Curtis he went to Reilly's office on
January 17 to seek his assistance. Cummings had never
seen Reilly before, but he showed him his union card in
Local 749,11 a sister local, and told him he was interested
in employment at the Bulletin . In a very brief
conversation, Reilly told Cummings that Local 16 had 900
members, and he had to "protect his union membership,"
but he promised to bring Cummings' request before the
Union's executive committee's meeting in February.
On January 19, Cummings filed an employment
application with the Bulletin's personnel manager who
advised him that she considered him a qualified pressman
on the basis of his experience. Cummings was given
assurances during this interview that his application could
be processed quickly and that he would probably hear
from the Employer in the following week.
On or about February 14, after the Union's executive
committee had met, Cummings telephoned Reilly and
learned that the executive committee had tabled the
question of what the Union was "going to do with the
ex-Curtis employees seeking employment at the Bulletin "
Cummings then filed a charge of unfair labor practices
with the Board against both the Union and the Bulletin
Thereafter he went back to the Bulletin and was told by
the personnel manager that the Employer feared a
slowdown if he were hired without union clearance. He
was not hired by the Bulletin at that time.
'Spendlove is current chairman of the Association 's bargaining
committee.
"These are the eight employees named in General Counsel 's complaint
"Local 709 was the local which was formed at Curtis when it was
organized some years ago
In March 1969, Cummings was invited to the
International Union's headquarters in Washington, D. C ,
where he met with at least two International officials and
with Reilly and Mallon from Local 16. The International
officials advised him to drop the unfair labor practice
charges he had filed with the Board and to process his
case "through union channels." He was also told to
deposit his "travelling card" with Local 16 and did
attempt to withdraw the charges he had filed with the
Board."
Cummings attended a meeting of the Union's executive
committee at Reilly's invitation on April II in
Philadelphia Cummings said there were approximately 20
persons in the room, but he was able to identify only
Reilly and Mallon. He testified, and I credit his
testimony, that at that meeting Reilly said he considered
him a qualified applicant, for no one who has worked in a
pressroom for 23 years is unqualified. This was after
Cummings had reviewed his experience with Reilly.
Although Reilly suggested that Cummings stop seeing the
Board agent who was investigating his case, Cummings
was also told at the meeting of the executive committee
that his "travelling card was tabled" because an
International official would arrive in Philadelphia the
following week and everything was "frozen" in the
meantime. Cummings was also advised that if he
cooperated he would have no trouble at the Bulletin if he
were hired. This he took to mean that if he went through
the Union and got approval for hire, he would get more
cooperation from his fellow employees. Cummings'
traveling card had not been accepted by the Union at the
time of the hearing in this case
3. The settlement agreement and the reaction in the
pressroom
The Board proceeded to investigate the unfair labor
practice charges filed by Cummings, and the Employer
entered into a settlement agreement, approved by the
Regional Director on April 30, 1969, in which it agreed to
offer employment as journeymen pressmen to eight named
former Curtis employees and to post appropriate notices
to its employees in that respect." Pursuant to the terms of
the settlement agreement, the Employer sent letters to the
eight offering them employment. Six of the eight original
applicants responded affirmatively and were interviewed
by Grant, the Employer's production manager, who told
them that they would begin work during the week of May
26 Grant testified that he was impressed by the "quality
and character" of the applicants.
On May 20, Grant met with most of the supervisors of
the pressroom and explained the terms and the
significance of the settlement agreement He also told the
Union's chapel chairman, James Austin, that the notices
required by the settlement agreement were goirfg to be
posted, and they were posted at approximately 2 p m. that
day.
"It is customary in some of the printing trades for a member of one
local union to deposit his union card with another local if he seeks work
within its jurisdiction The Union 's constitution has provisions covering
travel cards and their deposit in order that the person seeking employment
may be permitted to work within the jurisdiction of the local
"The notices , among other things, advise employees that the eight
alleged discriminatees are being offered employment as journeymen, that
the Bulletin will not discriminate against any applicant or former
employees of Curtis Publishing employed in certain categories, or give
effect to any agreement which conditions the hire of applicants for
employment upon membership in or clearance from Respondent Local 16
652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The day after the posting of the terms of the settlement
agreement, the Bulletin experienced certain production
problems and the number of papers produced was
substantially below normal. On May 22, the number of
problems increased, and by 3 p.m. production was 200,000
papers behind the Bulletin's target time for home delivery.
Some of the problems causing the reduction in production
were credibly described by Powers, mechanical assistant to
Production Manager Grant, as the throwing of electrical
switches to improper positions, causing reels to improperly
operate, removal of contacts from the control board of
reels; other electrical controls removed and bent out of
shape, which could only be done by opening the doors of
panels; damage to photo-electric cells which control the
movement of reels; and screws turned to positions which
make the reels inoperative. In addition, electricians were
called constantly by pressroom employees to make repairs
on presses which had stopped Investigation showed in
some cases that there was nothing wrong with the press
and that it must have been stopped by pushing a button.
Many of the incidents and all of the damage which
Powers described cause web breaks." When the web
breaks it must be rethreaded causing downtime and loss of
production. Powers testified that press breakdowns were
considerably above normal on May 22, and Grant credibly
demonstrated from graphs and charts that web breaks on
May 21 and 22 were far in excess of the number of breaks
which occur normally and could only compare with the
number experienced on the day Stoddard went to work in
June 1966. Grant also testified on the basis of company
records and graphic exhibits that the last time the
Bulletin 's production was substantially down was the day
Stoddard was hired.
Spendlove was away from the city on May 21 and 22,
and Elliott, assistant business manager, was in charge
Elliott was notified by Grant on May 21 that production
was off, and by noon on May 22 it was obvious to them
that a slowdown was in progress. Elliott reached Reilly
around 2 p.m. and asked him to help get production
restored to normal. Elliott testified that Reilly professed
ignorance of what was going on, and when Elliott
explained what was happening, Reilly said he would look
into it, but he also added that "the union was concerned
about the Curtis people."
During the course of Elliott's talk with Reilly on the
telephone, Reilly mentioned the meeting which the
Bulletin had with its foreman on the settlement agreement
and indicated that he understood that the Bulletin had
instructed the supervisors to teach the Curtis employees
how to do their work. Reilly stated that the Union would
not permit the foremen to so instruct employees and that
"under no circumstances was the union going to permit
anyone to assist these men, that they had to prove their
competence on their own; and that the union membership
had been so instructed."1S Reilly also mentioned the Board
notice which had been posted in his talk with Elliott.
As production continued to fall, Elliott tried to reach
Reilly again but was unable to reach him at his office At
approximately 5, Elliott told Spendlove what had
happened, and Spendlove instructed him to take the Board
notices down and notify the Curtis applicants not to
report for work as planned.
"The web is the paper from the roll that is threaded through the press.
"After a debate on the point , Elliott said Reilly concluded the discussion
by saying, "Well, no foreman will be permitted to do anything that he has
not routinely done before "
Reilly arrived in the Bulletin's pressroom around 5:30
p m. and called Elliott from there. He said he still did not
know what was going on and had not spoken to the
chapel chairman about it since he had just arrived Elliott
told Reilly that the notices had been taken down and the
Curtis men instructed not to report He asked Reilly
whether this action would "resolve our problem," and
Reilly commented that he did not know whether the
Bulletin had a problem, but if it did have a problem, that
would resolve it Elliott suggested that Reilly talk with the
chapel chairman as he had intended to when he arrived
Grant was the person who actually removed the Board
notices and advised Curtis applicants not to report. He
spoke with Austin, the chapel chairman, as soon as he got
his instructions and told him what was being done
According to Grant's uncontradicted testimony, Austin
wanted to know why the Bulletin was taking these actions
and when Grant told him the Bulletin was in "trouble,"
Austin indicated ignorance, and when Grant referred him
to the tachometer which records production, Austin
appeared not to know what its function was. Grant asked
Austin to ask the men to go back to work, and when
Austin returned from his mission and passed Grant on his
way to his desk where he was working on the make-up
sheet for the following day, he said, "the word has been
passed." There was an upswing in production for the rest
of the day, and the presses operated normally on the
following day.
4 The Bulletin hires and fires the Curtis applicants
for the second time
After the Curtis group which was to report to work the
following week was notified not to report, the Bulletin
notified the Regional Office of the Board by letter that
because of the "conduct, on the part of members of
Philadelphia Newspaper Printing Pressmen's Union No.
16" the Bulletin found it impossible to comply with the
terms of the settlement agreement. On June 12, the
Regional Director withdrew his approval of the
agreement, and, on June 13, the consolidated complaint in
this matter was issued.
After the complaint issued, the Regional Director
petitioned the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for an injunction against both
Respondents under Section 10(j) of the Act. On August
19, 1969, the Employer and the Union made an agreement
before Judge C. William Kraft in the district court
whereby the Bulletin agreed to offer employment to the
eight former Curtis employees and the Union agreed that
it would not conduct any stoppages or slowdowns if any
of the eight were hired Pursuant to this agreement,
Cummings and Frank Roberts reported for work as
pressmen on August 27, 1969.
From the moment Cummings and Roberts entered the
pressroom they were the objects of intense and dangerous
harassment by pressroom employees. In order to replate a
press, the used plate must be dislodged with a tool called
a "bar." When the Bulletin tried to commence production
on August 27, most of the bars were missing and so the
presses were late in getting started The other pressmen
gave the two new employees no aid or assistance of any
kind. Employees stood around in groups of 25 or more
staring at Cummings and Roberts at work The two men
were frequently pelted with objects and constantly
bombarded with profanity and curses, and some epithets,
old as the labor movement, were scrawled on their press.
The employees' work area was fouled by the application
BULLETIN COMPANY
of a black substance to parts of the press they had to
handle in their work. The persons of both were assaulted
by baths of red ink At the end of one day of
"employment" Roberts found his clothes locker and
clothes defiled, and left the area in borrowed garments.
Cummings' locker seemed to be intact, but as he returned
from the shower, red ink was poured on him, and he
discovered that his locker had been padlocked. Unable to
retrieve his street clothes and surrounded by 20 or more
jeering persons, he covered himself with the
Evening- Bulletin '16 and fled to the superintendent's office.
The employees' concerted activities aimed at the Curtis
employees continued into the following week in the same
vein . There was no work on Labor Day, but on Tuesday,
September 2, Cummings said they "had about everything
happen" including more ink pourings Employee audiences
continued, and one employee threw a pepper shaker at
Cummings. On Thursday before noon, Roberts was
drenched with ink, but another marksman missed
Cummings and covered the press with unplanned color.
Supervisors had to conduct the men to the locker rooms.
One Curtis employee quit before Thursday, and that day
"Roberts got sick to his stomach," said Cummings.
Production Manager Grant finally sent the employees
home for their "own health and welfare," and they have
not been scheduled for work since.
On at least one occasion before Cummings and Roberts
were sent home, Reilly was in the pressroom while a
group of employees stood around and watched the two
men work. While the described incidents were occurring,
Assistant Business Manager Elliott telephoned Reilly to
report that lockers were being dumped down stair wells,
ink splattered on employees and lockers, wiring disturbed
in journals, and other similar mechanical sabotage. Reilly
protested that the Union was a highly responsible
organization , and added that the Bulletin 's troubles were
of its own making When Elliott warned that anyone
caught in an act of sabotage or harrassment would be
dismissed, Reilly answered that if they were "there will be
trouble ""
Grant also had a discussion with Reilly on September 3
about a plate which fell off a press that day damaging
equipment and endangering the lives of employees
working below the presses. Reilly claimed that the
accident was caused by the negligence of the Curtis
employees, and Grant insisted that the plate fell as a
result of a deliberate attempt by some one to damage
press equipment. Grant had had the incident investigated,
and although there was no determination that any
particular employee was responsible, I find, in accord with
Grant's and Cumming's testimony, that the Curtis people
had not touched that plate that day and that the
occurrence cannot be attributed to any failure of theirs I
do not find, however, that in the discussion with Reilly
which ensued Reilly told Grant that he would "pull the
shop" if the Employer did not remove the Curtis people
from the pressroom Although Grant testified that such a
remark was made, it appears to have been made in a
serious discussion of employee safety during which Reilly
admittedly appeared genuinely agitated about safety, and
Grant also subsequently stated that Reilly said he would
pull the shop "if anyone got hurt" as a result of
negligence or incompetence on the part of the new
employees.
"The News is the tabloid , not the Bulletin
"Elliott's testimony about his conversations with Reilly was essentially
uncontradicted , and is credited.
D. The Union's Testimony
653
Business Manager John Reilly was the Union's only
witness and his testimony related solely to events in 1969.
On August 20, 1969, the Union's attorney sent him a
letter with an accompanying notice which was supposed to
be posted in the pressroom The notice and letter were
read to pressroom employees by Reilly at a chapel
meeting in the pressroom on August 23. Briefly
summarized, the letter states that the Union had agreed in
the Section 10(j) proceeding in the district court not to
conduct any stoppages in response to the Bulletin hiring
eight Curtis men and that it is necessary for the union
leadership to impress upon the members that each had an
obligation to live up to the commitment made to the
court. The letter writer advised Reilly to instruct the
membership that although the Union felt the former
Curtis men were "not qualified for the job" and their
placement might violate tht, Union's contract, nevertheless
no strike action should be taken to remedy the action
because the Union had a contract with a no-strike clause
and now had a commitment to the court to abide by it. It
was also explained in the letter that if it appeared that the
Curtis men were unqualified, that would be the Bulletin's
"headache," but if it turned out that they were qualified,
then they would remain at work pending arbitration or the
action of some other tribunal. The notice, which arrived
too late for posting and which Reilly read, substantially
reflects the advice contained in the letter.
On June 6, 1969, after the Bulletin's settlement
agreement with the Board, its offer of employment to
eight employees and posting of notices to that effect in the
pressroom, and the slowdowns on May 21 and 22, the
Union's counsel directed a letter to the Board concerning
the pending charges of unfair labor practices against it
and the Bulletin . In short, this letter advises the Board
that referral or clearance by the Union is not a condition
precedent to hiring, but it adds that the Union objects to
the hiring of "non-qualified journeymen," explaining that
this is based on the fact that such hiring reduces
employment opportunities, endangers the Union's
apprenticeship system and causes physical danger to the
rest of the press crew, but has nothing to do with "union
membership." Nevertheless, the letter adds, if the Bulletin
decides to hire the Curtis men, no concerted action will be
taken against the men on the Bulletin, but it concludes by
forecasting that the Union will hold the Bulletin
responsible for any injuries caused to unit employees as a
result of being forced to work alongside of unqualified
persons. Reilly testified that the letter was sent to the
Board at his direction and "fairly sets forth the position
which (he) as business manager of the Union has taken all
of this year 1969."I l
Regarding the Union's position on the former Curtis
employees' lack of competence, Reilly testified that he
watched Roberts and Cummings at work on August 27
and 28 and observed the following defects in their
performance: While Roberts was laying a plate in place,
Cummings dislodged the press' safety device permitting
"Reilly also testified that when he learned that the Employer was going
to offer employment to ex-Curtis employees in May, he dispatched Vogel,
chairman of the Union' s executive committee , to a chapel meeting at the
Bulletin to inform the members of the Union not to "interfere with or
harass" the employees , but if these employees "could do the job," then
there should be "no slowdowns or stoppages " Vogel reported back that
"these instructions were followed to a 't '," Redly said. Vogel did not
testify, and there is no evidence of what, if anything, Vogel actually told
the employees
654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the cylinder to move and almost mashing Robert's hands.
Reilly instinctively shouted, and the foreman stopped the
press. Other inefficiences, less dramatic, were the
difficulties the men had in setting up rolls of paper for the
press run and in rethreading the paper when it broke.
They were also unable to find the bars used to detach the
plates, and when one of the union members found one for
them, they did not know how to use it Moreover, the
press the two men worked on was behind in production on
both days and both employees required "constant
supervisory instruction and attention."19 Cummings
conceded that they were "new" and made some mistakes.
I find any errors they made were either the result of
normal lack of orientation in a new pressroom or can be
attributed to abnormal conditions in the pressroom
described herein.
Spendlove had testified about a number of
conversations with Reilly about having received
applications from the Curtis people and his intentions in
that regard Reilly testified about some of these. His first
conversation on the subject, as he recalled it, appeared to
have been in April 1969 when he said Spendlove advised
him that he would hire a group of applicants in early
May. Reilly's response was "That's your prerogative, Al,"
but he added that he wanted to repeat what he had told
Spendlove "all along" which was that "if the people could
do the job, the local is in trouble; if they can't do the job,
the Bulletin is in trouble " He said Spendlove said he
understood the Union's position.20 Reilly also testified that
Spendlove advised him, on or about May 20, that he had
made an agreement with the Board and intended to post
it, to which intelligence Reilly reacted by telling Spendlove
"that it was a good idea and he would appreciate him
posting it.""
Spendlove had testified that in a meeting with Reilly
and Mallon in January 1969, the union spokesmen took
the position that the "Union had the exclusive right to
hire employees for the Bulletin ," and that this position
was maintained by Mallon at a subsequent meeting with
the Newspaper Publishers Association. Reilly testified that
he did not remember stating that the Union's executive
committee felt that the Union had such a right and said
that there would be no reason to make such a statement
because he was the only official spokesman for the Union.
E. Analysis, Additional Findings
1. The agreement and practice
The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the
record in this case is that the Union was legally
responsible for causing the Bulletin to refuse to hire and
"Redly also investigated the plate falling incident on September 3 His
testimony adds little to what Grant said about their conversation except
that Reilly implied (his testimony is not too clear ) that the fault was
Cumming's and Robert 's I have found to the contrary
"There was perhaps more than enough testimony about what the
speaker and the listener understood this somewhat crytic prophecy-to
mean At one point , Reilly said that it meant that if the applicants turned
out to be competent , they could have the jobs without any question raised
by the Union . At another point he explained that "trouble" for the Union
meant loss of employment opportunities to members of the Union in the
pressroom and an endangering of the Union 's apprenticeship program.
"There is nothing in Spendlove's testimony about such a call, but there
is in Elliott ' s, who testified that when he telephoned Redly to tell him
about the May slowdown , Reilly raised a question about the notice and
Elliott explained the circumstances surrounding it Reilly did not refer to
this subject when he testified about the Elliott conversation
thereafter keep in its employ the Curtis applicants. This
determination is compelled, it seems to me, by the
combination of significant factors found above and now
briefly recapitulated
It is beyond question, because there is an abundance of
evidence to establish it, that for many years the Union
and the Employer have maintained and enforced an
agreement and practice requiring membership in, or
clearance or approval by, the Union as a condition of•
employment. The agreement was not in writing, but all,
the statements, actions and reactions of the parties to
relevant stimuli clearly manifest its existence 22 First of all
there was the Union's oral responses to the Employer's
attempt to act independently of the Union when the
Union was unable to meet its contract commitment to
supply journeymen to the publishers. I have credited
Spendlove's testimony that Reilly told him twice in
January 1969, once over the telephone and again in a
meeting with Mallon, the Union's president, that the
Union's executive board felt that the Union had the right
to do the hiring at the Bulletin 21 Reilly had no
recollection of this, but I think his recall was poor or
distorted by union fealty. Mallon did not testify, and his
statement during the discussion of the subject with
Spendlove to the effect that he never heard of the
DeAndrade Agreement, under which Stoddard was hired
over Local 16's opposition, is contradicted by the fact that
he was one of the persons who signed the complaint in the
action against the International in July 1967 to remove
the trusteeship which was imposed over -the Stoddard
incident , and he was also president of the Union when
Stoddard was hired
The actions of both the Employer and the Union from
1966 to the present reveal as clearly as do the spoken
admissions that a journeyman pressman had to get cleared
by the Union before hiring, even if there were no available
Local 16 pressmen When, after alerting the Union that
there was a serious shortage of pressmen, the Bulletin
went around the Union and hired Stoddard, a slowdown
occurred, and the Employer fired Stoddard at the Union's
request. The Stoddard problem was temporarily
"resolved," not by management insisting on and fully
regaining its right to hire without union approval, but by
agreeing to upgrade some more apprentices to journeymen
status . The Stoddard problem was never resolved in the
Bulletin 's favor on a local level, and even though the
International imposed a trusteeship on the Local because
it did not go along with the International's position, and
despite the terms of the DeAndrade Agreement, worked
out with the International on behalf of the Local, which
purported to give the Employer the right to hire
journeymen on its own, the Bulletin never tried to use this
right, despite how much it says it needed it, until the
Curtis applicants appeared in its office 2 years later.
During that period the pressroom staff, with Union
approval, was supplemented with pressmen from other
papers, Bulletin men on their days off at premium rates,
and apprentices and even plate boys working at
"The Act is violated if the discriminatory understanding is written oral
or tacit, based on the conduct of the parties Bricklayers, Masons and
Plasters ' International Local Union No 18 (Ferguson Tile and Marble
Co ), 151 NLRB 160, 163, Skouras Theaters Corporation, 155 NLRB 157,
enfd 631 F 2d 826 (C A 3), International Hod Carriers', Building and
Common Laborers' Union, Local 894, 148 NLRB 55, enfd 355 F.2d 249
(C A 6), Local 568, Hotel & Club Employees Union, 141 NLRB 310,
312-314, enfd 344 F.2d 723 (C A 3)
"This position was also maintained by the Union at a meeting with the
Publisher's Association in February 1969, Spendlove said
BULLETIN COMPANY 655
journeymen rates This painful reaction to the Union's
pressure in the Stoddard case tells the story, and it makes
Reilly's statement to Spendlove that he would not have
signed the present labor agreement if he did not believe
the Union had the right to control hiring very
understandable, for this is the way it was for a long time."
When the former Curtis employees became available
for employment in January 1969 and the Bulletin needed
their services, the Bulletin cleared first with Reilly, as it
had been taught and understood it ought to do. In
addition to telling the Employer that the Union had
exclusive referral rights, the Union also told the Bulletin
that there would be "trouble" if the applicants were put to
work, and finally, as the Bulletin insisted on obtaining the
Union's consent to its proposed action, the Union, by
Mallon, said the former Curtis men would come to work
only under a court order. The Employer's plea for union
approval of its plan to hire some pressmen and the
Union's reaction is once more a clear indication that, as
late as February 1969, the parties understood that the
Union exercised control in the employment area.
2. The Union ' s responsibility
The Union had warned the Bulletin that there would be
trouble if the applicants were hired, and on May 21 and
22, 1969, after the Bulletin had posted notices that eight
former Curtis employees were coming to work in the
pressroom, the kind of trouble that had not happened
since the Bulletin hired the last man without union
approval erupted again Instruments and machinery were
sabotaged and the resulting 2-day slowdown caused the
Employer to repudiate the settlement and its offers of
employment When it did, production returned to normal
and the presses, instruments and paper began to act as
expected when no one is interfering with their regular life
cycles. This is almost enough, taken with the Union's
claim to exclusive control over hiring, to permit the
inference that the pressure had been applied by the Union
for the same reason that it had been in 1966 when
Stoddard was hired. But there is more.
On May 22, when Elliott sought Reilly's support in
getting production restored, Reilly said he would
investigate, but he also made statements revealing that
hiring of Curtis men and the Bulletin's loss of production
were connected He said immediately that "the union was
concerned about the Curtis people," and he disapproved
of supervision being instructed to assist the new men,
maintained that he would not permit it and stated that the
membership had been sa instructed. Reilly was aware that
the Employer had posted the Board notices and he
questioned their significance Later in the afternoon of the
22nd when the notices had been taken down and Reilly
was asked if that would cure the Bulletin 's problem, he
"The complaint by Shablin, Mallon , Vogel, Reilly et al , in federal court
to have the trusteeship removed, which I admitted over the Union's
objection, is at least some evidence that there was a dispute over
Stoddard's hire, that the Union objected to the settlement providing for
hiring of Stoddard , and that trusteeship was imposed It is also evidence,
as I have found , that Mallon knew of the Stoddard case , and this also
applied to Reilly, the present business manager I do not rely on the
pleading, however, where it states that the Bulletin was attempting to
employ a "non-union pressman " and that the International suggested a
settlement so providing This is so because this may have been a
unfelicitous choice of words by the pleader, but the other matters are facts
and corroborated by other matters in the record Moreover , it is clear that
Stoddard was hired without Union approval and that was what the dispute
was all about
indicated that it would "if the Bulletin had a problem."
Reilly's assumed lack of awareness of what was going on
was duplicated by the chapel chairman's profession of
ignorance of any loss of production, even though it had
fallen 200,000 behind, and the meaning of the recording
device, which tells at a glance how the paper is faring
production wise. Neither of them appear to have done
anything to alleviate the situation and seem to have
dragged their feet, at least until the Employer capitulated.
This lack of leadership and direction is significant in that
from it may be inferred condonation at least, but their
pretended innocence permits the added inference that they
knew what the score was from the beginning and were
pleased with the way the game was going. This cool and
negative attitude is particularly significant when it is
considered that the Union is party to a contract
containing a no-strike or "other form of interference with
the peaceful operation of all departments" clause The
Union appeared more concerned with its control over
hiring than it did over being sued for damages
The Union's reaction to the disgraceful conditions
under which the Curtis employees had to work in late
August and early September after they were employed
under an agreement made in the District Court, was of
the same vein as its response to the slowdown in May
when the Bulletin told the Union its plans to hire the
Curtis men. It is a fact that Business Manager Reilly
issued instructions to the Union's members to honor the
Union's commitment to the court and to engage in no
slowdowns or stoppages when the Curtis men were hired.
But Reilly also reminded the members that the Curtis
men were "unqualified" in the Union's eyes and that the
Union opposed their hire under the terms of the labor
agreement. Earlier, he had instructed the members,
including supervisors to give no assistance to the new
employees, and at the meeting in the pressroom, he
repeated this instruction. When he had met with
Cummings in January and February when Cummings was
first seeking employment at the Bulletin and trying to get
Union approval, Reilly told him he could have it "hard"
or "easy." "Easy" meant just that, if he "cooperated"
and got his job with union approval, "hard" meant no
help from the rest of the pressroom employees, if he was
hired directly by the Employer When the harrassment
and disorder in the pressroom commenced with the
entrance of the Curtis people into the union pressroom
and Elliott complained to Reilly about it, seeking his help,
Reilly blamed the Employer for the conditions, and
predicted "trouble" if anyone were disciplined When the
Union's passive or negative attitude toward what was
happening to Cummings, Roberts and the others is viewed
in the light of the Stoddard case, its claim of control in
the pressroom, the events in May, and the whole record as
I have set it out, it is clear that Reilly's belated and
somewhat blurred instructions to the membership after the
Union was faced with court action is not legally enough
and that more positive actions were required of him and
other union officials. By at least permitting a situation
which it had created to continue, the Union ratified and
condoned, if it did not actually participate in, the
members' treatment of the new employees, and was
therefore responsible for the Employer's termination of
those employees
As the complaint alleges, Edward Henderson was the
first Curtis applicant, applying on January 16, 1969.
Subsequently, beginning on January 20 and continuing to
February 7, seven others applied. Reilly told Spendlove on
January 16 that if he hired Henderson it would cause
656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"trouble." I find that the discrimination against
Henderson dates from January 16 the day the Employer
would have hired him The dates on which the Employer
would have hired the other seven applicants is not
absolutely clear in the record, although it seems evident
enough that they would have been hired before February,
if there had been no union opposition. The Employer,
however, gave the Union a list of all eight men at a
meeting on February 13, indicating its desire to hire them.
The Union's reaction at that meeting, as previously
described, makes it evident, and the complaint so alleges,
that the Union attempted to and did cause the Employer
to refuse to hire the applicants for reasons not permitted
by the Act. I date the discrimination against them,
therefore, from February 13, the date alleged in the
complaint I find and conclude that the Union violated
Section 8(b)(2) and 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act by causing the
Employer not to hire the eight Curtis applicants, and that
the Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
by refusing to hire them. The Union's actions to prevent
the hire of the applicants on May 21 and 22, and the
Employer's capitulation on May 23 were also violations of
the same sections of the Act.29
3. The object of the Union's conduct
In a letter to the Board on June 6, 1969, the Union
stated that "There is no question but that Local 16 objects
to the hiring of non-qualified journeymen to fill
journeymen positions." This position, the writer stated,
has nothing to do with union membership but is premised
on the endangerment of the standards of the
apprenticeship system and the "substantial hazard of
physical danger to all of the men on the crew." This was
also the position the Union took at the hearing I find
that the only real objection .that the Union had to
Cummings, the charging party, and the other ex-Curtis
employees, is that they had not been cleared for hire by
and approved for membership in Local 16.
In considering the term "qualified," Spendlove's lucid
explanation of how it was used in Stoddard's case is
helpful. In settling Stoddard's case the DeAndrade
Agreement provided that "seniority of a newly-hired
qualified journeyman will predate . . the seniority of all
apprentices . " To be "qualified," however, the
"journeyman" must have completed the apprentice course
or "any other comparable course agreed upon " With
respect to "newly hired journeymen," not "qualified" as
just defined, their seniority, the DeAndrade Agreement
provided, was "conditional" and below that of
"newly-hired qualified journeymen" until certain
conditions were met. It is clear from the agreement and
Spendlove's explanation that the terms "qualified" or
"unqualified" were just "tags"'that the parties "hung on a
man who either had or had not taken the course." As far
as actual qualifications to do a journeyman's job, there
was no "great discussion" of it, he said.
There is nothing in the labor agreement between the
publishers and the Union which gives the Union the right
to make a determination on an applicant's actual
qualifications 'or competency as a pressman, but the
contract does provide in Section 13 that "the Publisher's
representative shall be the sole judge of a man's
competency . . . ." Moreover, Cummings had 23 years
"Bricklayers , Masons and Plasters ' International (Ferguson Tile and
Marble ), 151 NLRB 160, Radio Officers' Union v. N L R B ,-347 U S. 17,
45
experience at Curtis Publishing Company on rotary letter
presses and Reilly told him he was "qualified" when he
sought the Union's aid in getting a job It is apparent,
therefore, that "qualified" has at least two meanings, and,
one of them has little to do with ability to do the work.
Since the Employer is the sole judge of a man's
qualifications, Cummings and all the other Curtis
applicants were presumptively "qualified," having been
interviewed and offered employment by Grant who found
them clearly competent. There is not a bit of evidence in
this record that the Union made any investigation of the
applicant's background or experience or gave any
objective consideration to their purported qualifications in
order to overcome the presumption that they were
qualified. Actually, in addition to Reilly's admission that
he considered Cummings "qualified," throughout January
and February 1969, while the Bulletin and the Union were
discussing the applicants, the Union's emphasis was not
on their ability to do the work, but on the Union's right
to hire journeymen.
As indicating that when the Union uses the adjective
"qualified" to modify "journeyman" it may not mean
having spent a given number of years at the trade, is the
Bulletin 's practice for many years of using apprentices and
even plate boys as journeymen because the Union has
been unable to supply journeymen and objects to the
employment of people like Stoddard. The Union clearly
approves of the employment of these apprentices as
journeymen and it has frequently urged their upgrading to
journeyman status before they have finished the term that
it claims makes a man "qualified." It also appears that
the Union has referred men to the Bulletin who have not
worked on letterpresses, although it "tabled" Cummings'
application despite his long experience on that type of
machine.26
The Union's failure to make any investigation of the
applicants' background or judge them by any objective
standards is in vivid contrast with the environment in
which their skills were scrutinized by their union brothers
when they came to work after court intervention
Sabotage and surveillance, hostility and harrassment
marked their induction into a union office which is
supposed to represent a form of industrial self-government
under the law of the shop But if their skills were being
tried, tested and observed by their peers, the
demonstration of union solidarity which Cummings
described with restraint so well, and which need not be
repeated here, was not the kind of trial and fair
representation which the law tells us all unit employees
are entitled to.27 Some months before, the Union had told
the Employer that it would supply pressmen, and it could
not care less about the Curtis applicants. It showed how
little it cared by the way it treated them. I find that the
treatment given Cummings and Roberts is additional
"The laid-off Curtis employees were members of another 4ocal of the
Pressmen's Union, and the International has apparently attempted to aid
them in obtaining employment The July 3, 1969, issue of News & Views
the official newspaper of the International, referred to them as "available
280 highly competent press personnel, of all classifications with up to 25
years experience on high-speed letterpress and offset equipment
"Cf International Typographical Union (The Dispatch Printing
Company), 177 NLRB No 58, where the Board in finding that
enforcement of a valid "law of the shop" was permissible, emphasized that
the considerations which supported the rule were within the "wide range of
reasonableness allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the
unit it represents, and are free of arbitrary or irrelevant considerations
inconsistent with its duty fairly to represent all employees in the bargaining
unit "
BULLETIN COMPANY
evidence that their removal was sought for reasons other
than their competency as pressmen.28 I also find that there
is absolutely no credible evidence in the record that the
newly-hired employees were unqualified or incompetent,
and I conclude that the Union's reliance upon such a
claim is pretextual and that it sought the removal of all of
them from the Bulletin's employ because they were not
members of, or not cleared and approved for employment
by, the Union
4. The Union's other contentions
On May 26, 1969, the Publishers Association filed a
grievance against the Union under the
collective-bargaining contract on behalf of the Bulletin
claiming a violation of certain sections of the contract In
substance the grievance asserted is the Union's alleged
violation of the no-strike pending arbitration clauses of
the agreement The Union urges that this case and the
core of the dispute involve an interpretation of the
contract and the Board should defer to arbitration since
the Employer has invoked the agreement. This case also
involves a question of whether the Employer and the
Union violated the Act by their conduct, and in addition,
the grievance is still pending I see no justification on the
basis of law or policy why the Board should delay action
in this case 29
The Union also contends that a union may bring
pressure against an employer to preserve and maintain
work opportunities for unit members. This may be true In
certain situations involving pressure directed toward an
employer to have him agree, regardless of the union
affiliation of the secondary employer's employees, not to
contract out unit work or do business with another
employer in order to preserve the jobs of employees
working for him 30 In those cases the action of the Union
is considered "primary" and not "secondary" on the
theory that Congress did not outlaw all of the traditional
means by which unions seek to preserve work for unit
employees and because the main thrust of the Union's
action is not enhancement of the Union's institutional
interests But this is a long way off from Congress'
intention to forbid employers and unions from
discriminating against employees in their hire or tenure on
the basis of union considerations." What I have found
here is not that the Union was not interested in getting
more premium shifts for its members or more journeyman
work for union apprentices, but that it prevented
Cummings' and the other Curtis employees' hire and
caused their discharge because they were not members of,
or approved by, Local 16. If this was the Union's aim and
it succeeded, it would be maintaining closed shop
conditions, a clear violation of the Act by both the
Employer and Union.92 I have found that the Union so
intended and was quite successful for a long time
"See, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices. Local 633,
178 NLRB No 61 See also N L R B v Sheet Metal Workers
International Association . Local No 65, 359 F 2d 46, 50 (C A 6), where
although the agreement of the parties required the employer to hire
Journeymen , the court held that this did not permit the union to cause the
discharge , over the employer's opposition , of employees who failed to pass
unilaterally administered competency tests, even if, as argued by the union,
they were "objective non-discriminatory tests" Judge Edwards, speaking
for the court , noted the "fine line of distinctions which have been drawn in
relation to permissible and impermissible conduct of unions in this area
"See N L R B v Strong , 339 U S 357, 361
"National Woodwork Manufacturers Association v N L R B, 386 U S
612, U S 612, Fibreboard Paper Products Corp v N L R B. 379 U S
6. The Employer's responsibility
657
Respondent Employer's answer admitted and the
evidence showed that it failed and refused to hire the
individuals named in the complaint because of their "lack
of membership in, or clearance or approval by,
Respondent Union." Respondent Employer's answer,
while neither admitting nor denying paragraph 4 of the
complaint which alleged that it had been since August 17,
1968," a party to an agreement with the Union
conditioning hiring of pressmen on membership in, or
clearance or approval by, the Union, alleged that it had
never "voluntarily entered into, maintained, enforced, or
given effect to any such arrangement, understanding or
practice." It further stated that it admitted that since
January 16, 1969, except for the attempt to employ the
individuals named in the complaint, it had not hired or
attempted to hire any individual unless he was referred,
cleared, or approved by the Respondent Union, but it
added that "such action on the part of Respondent
Employer was not voluntary " Respondent's answer in this
respect is tantamount to an admission that it has
conditioned employment as alleged in the complaint, and
the evidence, as I have found, establishes such an
understanding. It is clear therefore, based on the
allegations of the complaint, the answer and the record,
that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the
Act by maintaining and implementing such an agreement.
The Employer, while admitting a violation of the Act,
urges that, in the circumstances of this case, the Union
should be held primarily liable for any financial remedy
imposed The Employer stresses its opposition to the
Union's claims that it had exclusive control of hiring, its
repeated attempts to have the Union approve the hiring of
the Curtis applicants, its settlement agreement with the
Board, the pressure the Union applied to cause it to
accede to its demands and delay hiring despite the
settlement, the unfair labor practice charge it filed against
the Union and its second attempt to employ the men after
District Court intervention, an attempt which was again
thwarted by union actions making it impossible for it to
permit the newly hired employees to remain in the
pressroom It argues that these facts show that it has done
all in its power to put the men to work and cooperate
with the Board and the District Court, and that its actions
in acceding to Union pressure have not been voluntary.
It is the Board's usual practice where the Union has
caused an employer to discriminate to hold the parties
jointly and severally liable for backpay when they are
joined as Respondents, but there are cases, cited by the
Employer, where liability has been imposed on the union
203, 225 But see, Milk Wagon Drivers Local 546 (Minnesota Milk Co ).
133 NLRB 1314, enfd 314 F 2d 761 (C A 8), A Duie Pyle v N L R B.
383 F 2d 722 (C A 3)
"See Radio Officers' Union v N L R B, 347 U S 17
"Skouras Theaters Corporation, 155 NLRB 157, enfd 361 F 2d 826
(C.A 3); Local No 320, International Union of Operating Engineers, 150
NLRB 455; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 478, 162
NLRB 1177, Local Union No 38, United Association of Plumbers. 159
NLRB 371 Cf N L R B v Bechtel Corporation, 328 F 2d 28 (C A 10),
N L R B v News Syndicate Company, Inc, 365 U S 695, United
Association of Journeymen. 147 NLRB 929, 931 See also International
Typographical Union (The Dispatch Printing Company). supra, were the
Board , after noting that the union's enforcement of the rule in question did
not violate its duty of fair representation , also observed that the rule
"affects both union and nonunion employees alike " This was not the case
here
"This date was obviously chosen by the draftsmen in the light of Section
10(b) of the Act.
658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the first instance and only secondarily on the offending
employer In N L R B v Lexington Electric Products
Co ,30 where the court found "special circumstances"
which it felt made it "patently inequitable" that the
employer be made more than secondarily liable, it
appeared that the union struck the employer's plant to get
it to close out another operation manned by employees
not members of the union . The employer resisted the
union 's demand to the point of filing charges, and only
capitulated when the strike took place. The court stated
that the employer had "resisted to the full extent that
could be reasonably expected." There are equities in this
case on the employer's side, but in balancing equities, it
should not be forgotten that the employees are the real
parties injured and there may be a risk that a watered
down remedy may expose them to the same kind of injury
that they suffered in the past. I also have some question
about whether the Bulletin resisted to the full extent that
could reasonably be expected It, unlike, the employer in
the cited case, had an illegal arrangement with the Union
for some time and had succumbed to union pressure in the
Stoddard case without seeking administrative relief It still
remained passive when the Union told it that hiring the
applicants would cause "trouble," and it was the Curtis
employees who first invoked the Act's protection, not the
Employer. It was also 5 months after the charges were
filed-by Cummings and after the Employer reneged on its
agreement with the Board that it filed charges. On
balance, I will recommend that the Board apply its usual
remedy of joint and several liability for any backpay due '°
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
UPON COMMERCE
Respondent Employer, it will also be recommended that it
cease and desist from refusing to hire or discharging
employees on the same basis
It will also be recommended that Respondent Employer
offer immediate employment as journeymen pressmen to
the applicants named in the consolidated complaint, and
that the Respondent Union notify the Respondent
Employer, in writing, and furnish a copy to each applicant
named in the complaint, that it has withdrawn its
objections to employment by the Employer and requests
the Employer to hire them
Since it has been found that the Employer and the'
Union are both responsible for the discrimination suffered
by the eight applicants named in the complaint, it will be
recommended that they jointly and severally make them
whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to
each of them of a sum of money equal to that which they
would have earned from the date of the discrimination
against them to the date of the Employer's offer of
reinstatement less net earnings, and in a manner
consistent with Board policy set out in F. W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 Interest on backpay shall be
computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing &
Heating Co, 138 NLRB 716 The Respondent Union
shall not be liable for any backpay which may accrue for
the period beginning 5 days after it notified the Employer
that it has no objections to the applicants' employment. It
is also recommended that the Employer make available to
the Board, upon request, payroll and other records to
facilitate the computation of the amount of backpay
On the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the
entire record in the case, I make the following-
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with the operations of the
Respondent Employer set forth in section I, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and
the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that they
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
actions designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act
Having found that the Respondents have been parties
to and maintained in effect an agreement, understanding
and practice which conditioned the hire or employment of
journeymen pressmen with Respondent Employer upon
membership in, or clearance or approval by, Respondent
Union, both the Employer and the Union will be required
to cease maintaining or giving effect to such agreement or
understanding
As to the Union, it will be recommended that it cease
and desist from causing or attempting to cause
Respondent Employer to refuse to hire or to discharge
employees because they are not members of, or have not
been approved or cleared by, Respondent Union As to
"283 F 2d 54 (C A 3)
"Zoe Chemical Co, 160 NLRB 1001, and Hershey Chocolate Corp,
129 NLRB 1052, also relied on by the Employer, are more easily
distinguished In both cases, the employers resisted the union 's demand
that employees be discharged and gave in only after an arbitrator's award,
which in one case was enforced by a court
Conclusions of Law
1. Bulletin Company is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2 The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
3 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of
the persons named in the attached notices, thereby
encouraging membership in Respondent Union,
Respondent Employer has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act
4. By causing the Respondent Employer to discriminate
against the said persons in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of
the Act, the Union had engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(b)(2) and (I)(A) of the Act.
5. By maintaining, enforcing and giving effect to an
agreement which conditions the hire or employment of
journeymen pressmen with Respondent Employer upon
membership in, or clearance or approval by, Respondent
Union, Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(3) and Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(2) and
(i)(A) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in the case,
and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, it is recommended that.
A. Respondent Employer, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
BULLETIN COMPANY 659
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) From giving effect to any, understanding or
agreement with Respondent Union which conditions
employment of journeymen pressmen upon membership
in, or clearance or approval by, Respondent Union.
(b) Encouraging membership in Respondent Union by
refusing to hire or discharging employees or in any other
manner discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of
employment or any term or condition, except to the extent
permitted by the proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959.
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights
.guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions which will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Offer to the persons named in the attached notices
to employees immediate employment as journeymen
pressmen and jointly and severally with Respondent
Union make them whole for any loss of earnings suffered
as a result of the discrimination in the manner and to the
extent set forth in the Section of this Decision, entitled
"The Remedy."
(b) Notify said persons named in the notice, if presently
strving in the Armed Forces of the United States, of their
right to full employment upon application in accordance
with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military
Training and Service Act, as amended, after their
discharge from the Armed Forces.
(c) Preserve and make available to the Board
employment records as provided in the remedy section of
this Decision.
(d) Post at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, newspaper
publishing plant, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix A."36 Copies of said notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 41--shall, after being
duly signed by the Employer's representative, be posted by
it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by
it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Employer to'insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Post at the same places and under the same
conditions as set forth in (d) above, and as soon as they
are forwarded by the Regional Director, copies of the
Respondent Union's attached notice marked "Appendix
B."
(f) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the date of receipt of this Recommended
Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith."
B. Respondent Union, its officers, agents, and
representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from.
(a) Maintaining or giving effect to any understanding
with Respondent Employer which conditions employment
of journeymen pressmen upon membership in, or
clearance or approval by, Respondent Union.
(b) Causing or attempting to cause the Respondent
Employer to discriminate against the persons named in
the notices attached hereto, or any other journeymen
employees or applicants, with regard to hire, tenure of
employment or any other term or condition of
employment, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
(c) In any other manner restraining employees of
Respondent Employer in the exercise of rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such
rights may be affected by an agreement requiring
membership in a labor organization. as authorized in
Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
2 Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Notify Respondent Employer, in writing, that it
withdraws all objection to the employment of the persons
named in the attached notices, with copies to those
persons, and that it requests Respondent Employer to
offer immediate employment to them as journeymen
pressmen.
(b) Jointly and severally with Respondent Employer
make the persons named in the attached notices whole for
any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of
discrimination against them in the manner set forth in
"The Remedy" section of this Decision.
(c)- Post in conspicuous places in Local 16's business
offices, , meeting halls and places where notices to its
members are customarily posted, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix B"11 Copies of said notice, on
forms to be provided by the Regional Director for Region
4, after being duly signed by an authorized representative
of Respondent, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained for
60 consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that such notices are not altered,
defaced or covered by other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for, Region 4, in
writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision and
Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply,
herewith "9
"In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of
the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the
findings, conclusions , recommendations , and Recommended Order herein
shall, as provided in Section 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations, be
adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions , and order, and
all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes in the event
that the Board 's Order is enforced by-a judgment of a United States Court
of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read "Posted
pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing
an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
"In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this
provision shall be modified to read . "Notify said Regional Director, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent
had taken to comply herewith "
"See fn 36, above
"See fn 37, above
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT maintain or give effect to any
agreement with Philadelphia Newspaper Printing
Pressmen's Local No. 16 whereby the hiring of
journeymen pressmen is conditioned on membership in,
or clearance or approval by, said Union.
_
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL NOT encourage membership in said Union
by discharging or refusing to hire journeymen pressmen
or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire
or tenure of employment or any term or condition of
employment, except to the extent permitted by the
proviso to Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL offer employment as journeymen pressmen
to:
'EDWARD HENDERSON HAROLD HEYDT
RICHARD CUMMINGS ALBERT BOENNING
LEO COYLE FRANCIS ROBERTS
CHARLES SCHALLER GEORGE TROCK
WEIWILL jointly and severally with the Union make
said employees whole for loss of pay suffered as a
result of the discrimination against them.
BULLETIN COMPANY
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
1700 Bankers Securities Building, Walnut & Juniper
Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone
215-597-7601.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations
Board an agency of the United States Government.
Philadelphia Newspaper Printing Pressmen 's Union, No.
16 notifies you that
WE WILL NOT maintain or give effect to any
agreement or understanding whereby employment of
journeymen pressmen at the Bulletin ►s conditioned on
membership in, or clearance or approval by, Local 16.
WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause the Bulletin
Company to discriminate against any applicant for
employment because he is not a member of Local 16 or
because he has not been cleared for employment by
Local 16.
WE WILL NOT ►n any other manner restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, except
to the extent that such rights may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment in,
accordance with the provisions of that Act.
WE WILL notify the Bulletin Company that we have
no objection to the employment of: Edward
Henderson, Richard Cummings, Leo Coyle, Charles
Schaller, Harold Heydt, Albert Boenning, Francis
Roberts and George Trock, and WE WILL jointly and
severally with the Bulletin Company make those men
whole for any loss of pay they suffered by reason of the
discrimination against them.
PHILADELPHIA
NEWSPAPER PRINTING
PRESSMEN 'S UNION No 16
Dated By
(Labor Organization)
(Representative ) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance
with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office,
1700 Bankers Securities Building, Walnut & Juniper
Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, Telephone
215-597-7601.